Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 142

Thu, 15 Jul 2010

• 1. Re: sevara vs. psak (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Milchig Bread (Yitzchak Schaffer)
• 3. Re: Milchig Bread (Jacob Farkas)
• 4. Re: sevara vs. psak (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: sevara vs. psak (David Riceman)
• 6. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 7. Re: [Areivim] Cholov Yisroel (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: [Areivim] Cholov Yisroel (Allan Engel)
• 9. sevara vs. psak (David Riceman)
• 10. ethics outside of Torah (David Riceman)
• 11. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: sevara vs. psak (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Re: [Areivim] Cholov Yisroel (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 14. Re: Cholov Yisroel (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 15. Machshirin 2:4 (Sholom Simon)

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 09:13:15AM -0400, Rich, Joel wrote:
:> Rather than "supposed SA algorithm" I would instead have written
:> "the SA's sometimes-overridden rule-of-thumb". Pesaq isn't algorithmic,
:> as per RRW and my multi-year going in circles on the subject. (Which
:> turned out to be more misunderstanding than substance.)

: This goes, at least partially, back to my question concerning klalei
: horaah - was Rav vs. Shmuel algorithmic or not. It appears from what
: I have found that it was, either because of area of specialty or sinai
: vs. oker harim as applied to mamonot vs. issurin.

I'm missing how you found evidence of Rav v. Shemuel rules being hard
and fast algorithmic rules rather than a factor to consider that might
in some cases be overridden.

How do you prove the absence of an exception, and even a potential
exception?

Most of the rest of the kelalei hora'ah do have exceptions; cases where
we hold like Beis Shammai or where we follow a majority of amora'im in
following the shitah of a yachid over a rabim in a mishnah. And the case
that brought this thread (as opposed to the one titled "Klalei horaah"
where Rav and Shemuel were discussed) to this topic.... the number
of times the SA doesn't actually follow rov of the 3 codes as he says
he would.

I would want some explicit statement that this particular kelal is itself
the exception to the notion that the kelalei hora'ah have exceptions. (I
think that sentence actually is coherent. It's akin to the old "'There
is an exception to every rule' -- including this one.")

BTW, in that other thread you mentioned the assumption that Rav and
Shemuel lived in different cities. Perhaps it was that each school
centered on a different topic - Rav focused Sura's curriculum on
issurim, and Shemu'el had Neharda'ah center on mamunus. It would be
interesting to track if that distinction carries through to his talmidim
to which amoraim you find in Neziqin vs other sidrei Shas, etc...

In any case, Shemuel's very name is related to dinei mamunus. Medrash
Shemuel (Buber ed 39a) 10 tells of when Abba took an order to buy silk
for R' Yehudah ben Beseira. (How that works on a time-line is beyond me,
as the Benei Beseira are before Hillel, and we're talking about someone
whose son was an amora?) RYbB then refused to pay, saying he was just
talking, and thus there was no binding qinyan. Avuha deShmuel asked him,
"But isn't a talmid chakham's word more sure than money?" And RYbB agreed,
and gave him a berakhah that he have a son like the navi Shemu'el, whom
all of Kelal Yisrael will recognize as a teacher.

And perhaps relevent: Shemuel is the one who said "dina demalkhusa dina".
(Nedarim 28a)

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 7/15/2010 00:58, Zev Sero wrote:
> Jacob Farkas wrote:
>> [From Areivim]
>> R Micha Berger wrote:
>>>> The OU and star-K used to give hechsheirim to bread that says dairy
>>>> on the label, relying on RYBS following his father, who in turn held
>>>> like the Chokhmas Adam and AhS that an external label is sufficient.
>> R Zev Sero
>>> Where does the AhS say this? I'm looking at it now and I don't see
>>> any such heter.

>> AhS YD 97:8 states that if it is made public knowledge that the item
>> is dairy, then the item is permissible without the otherwise required
>> shape modification. I can totally see how an external label on a
>> packaged item would satisfy this criteria.

> Absolutely not. Read it more carefully. That is almost the exact
> opposite of what he says.

[Most readers get Avodah in digest form, which mangles Hebrew text.
What follows is AhS YD 97:8, available on-line at
http://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%9A_%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%95%
D7%9C%D7%97%D7%9F_%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94_%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%94_%D7%A6%D7%96#
.D7.A1.D7.99.D7.9E.D7.9F_.D7.A6.D7.96_.D7.A1.D7.A2.D7.99.D7.A3_.D7.97
which I had reduced to the more managable url: http://bit.ly/dxoQLT
RYS emphasized some words, but I can't duplicate that for you.

-micha]

???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??
???? ?
?????? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? /??? ???/ ???"? ?? 
?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? 
/???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????/ ??"? ?? ????????? ?????? 
????? ?' /?? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????/ ??? ???? ???? ??? 
?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??"? ????? ??? ??????? ??? [??' 
?"? ??? ?"? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????"? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? 
???' ??"? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??"? ??? ???? 
???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?"? ??? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? 
??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? 
??? ????? ?????? ??"? ??"? ??"? ??? ??"? ?"? ???"? ???' ?"?]:

I read this like RJFarkas. Where do you see that it's the opposite?

-- 
Yitzchak Schaffer
Systems Manager
Touro College Libraries
Email yitzchak.schaf...@gmx.com

>> R Micha Berger wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The OU and star-K used to give hechsheirim to bread that says dairy
>>>> on the label, relying on RYBS following his father, who in turn held
>>>> like the Chokhmas Adam and AhS that an external label is sufficient.
>>
>> R Zev Sero
>>>
>>> Where does the AhS say this? ?I'm looking at it now and I don't see
>>> any such heter.
>>
Jacob Farkas:
>> AhS YD 97:8 states that if it is made public knowledge that the item
>> is dairy, then the item is permissible without the otherwise required
>> shape modification. I can totally see how an external label on a
>> packaged item would satisfy this criteria.
>
R' Zev Sero
> Absolutely not. ?Read it more carefully. ?That is almost the exact
> opposite of what he says.
>

I read it a few times and I still see how external labeling satisfies
the criteria.

In 97:4 he states that Rashi is of the opinion that in small amounts
(that which is to be consumed by a household for that day) it is
permissible to make Milchig bread. In 97:5 he quotes Rambam and Rashba
who translate the Gemara differently from Rashi, and suggest that the
criteria is shape, not time. Therefore, according to Rambam, it needs
to recognizably different. He then suggests that the Minhag to make
butter cookies in a slightly different shape derives from this
requirement. He then notes that people are starting to deviate from
this Minhag, and leave Milchig baked goods in
unrecognizable-as-Milchig form, and he objects vociferously (save for
scenarios where the milchig is self-evident, if item is filled with
cheese or is loaded with butter).

In 97:6 he discusses the prevalent practice of eating Sukhariki (a
Russian, unsweetened version of biscotti), and in particular Milchig
Sukhariki. The AhS claims that these Sukhariki are not distinguishable
from their non-milchig counterparts, and "L'Chorah" should be non
permissible to eat. Upon his investigation, the bakers responded that
thanks to the amounts of butter it does make the Sukhariki visibly
distinguishable. The AhS adds that perhaps because people are buying
them for immediate consumption, you can be lenient like the opinion of
Rashi mentioned earlier in 97:4 that one can make milchig bread for
immediate use.

In 97:7 he introduces Teshuvas Maharit who discusses the opposite
case, where the baked goods contained animal fat. His response was
that initially it should have never been brought to market, but now
that it was brought to market and all the locals know that  it
contains animal fat, there is no difference between this knowledge and
actually modifying the appearance of the product. The Maharit is
concerned by passersby who may not have this knowledge available. The
Maharit also adds items that are by design not intended to be eaten
with dairy, can be made with animal fat

The AhS in 97:8 then states that we established from Maharit (#1) that
when their is Public Knowledge that the item is Milchig or Fleishig,
there is no concern about the products. Therefore, if the bakeries
proclaim that the item is milchig, the items do not need alternative
modification in appearance to distinguish them from their pareve
counterparts. He then goes on to say that regarding the milchig
Sukhariki in 97:6, the public knowledge that they are Milchig is
sufficient. He then states (#2) that we also learn from the Maharit
that items that are not commonly eaten with dairy can be made with
animal fat, and vice versa, items that are not eaten with meat can be
made with dairy, and he remains undecided whether the Halacha supports
that argument.

I don't think that the AhS remained undecided regarding the first din
from the Maharit, regarding declaration.

I don't see a point in his mentioning the Maharit altogether if he
intended to dismiss item #1, as the whole point of mentioning the
Maharit was to support the prevalent custom of the bakers and their
Milchig Sukhariki. He already established 2 other rationales for this
practice. The only reason to mention to include the Maharit's opinion
is if it justifies the current practice.

The first Din, that declaration = a shinui, seems very logical. After
all, if you were from out of town, you'd have a better chance with a
little tag next to said item stating that its dairy than you would if
the item had a slightly different shape from its counterpart.

The second din of the Maharit, that an item which is not commonly
eaten with Milchig can be made with animal fat, absent of modification
(or declaration) could be open to discussion. The Gezerira was
designed to keep people from inadvertently eating milchig together
with fleishig. Would the Gezeirah include items that are inherently
eaten at different times, or does that alone constitute a shinui?

In practice (I am referring to Brroklyn, NY), you can purchase milchig
pound cake most anywhere (looks-but-thankfully-does-not-taste just
like the pareve one) and all it has visibly is its deceleration on the
packaging. You can find bakeries selling milchig goods that will have
a sticker on them stating that the item is milchig, again without any
other obvious shinui on the item.

I know people who remember that in the 'old country' it was routine
"tzi bakken milchigs." This was usually a yeast dough recipe that
contained milk and buttermilk. It served as the base for Kokosh cake,
rugelach, and other similar pastries. People knew it was milchig and
that was sufficient.

--Jacob Farkas

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:16:21PM -0400, I wrote:
: BTW, in that other thread you mentioned the assumption that Rav and
: Shemuel lived in different cities. Perhaps it was that each school
: centered on a different topic - Rav focused Sura's curriculum on
: issurim, and Shemu'el had Neharda'ah center on mamunus. It would be
: interesting to track if that distinction carries through to his talmidim
: to which amoraim you find in Neziqin vs other sidrei Shas, etc...

Nevermind, this probably wouldn't work.

When Rav was niftar, Sura temporarily closed down and for a while Nehardea
was the only yeshiva open. R' Huna, Rav's talmid muvhaq, became a student
of Shemuel (who survived Rav by about 7 years). It wasn't until Shemuel's
death that Sura reopened under R' Huna.

My point being, R' Huna ends up being a talmid of both, and even if Rav
had an emphasis on issurin, it's quite likely not to show up in Sura in
the long turn.

So, I retract this question, it's likely an invitation to a wild goose
chase.

R' Huna is the one who objects to R' Yirmiyah bar Aba following Shemuel
in a case of a velad born deformed (lo aleinu; perhaps RYbA was thinking
of Shemuel's medical knowledge) After noting that RYbA's attempt to be
machmir will be a qula WRT dam tahor, R' Huna concludes, "... deqayma lan,
hilkhisa keRav be'isurei, bein lequla, bein lechumera" (Niddah 24b)

While he doesn't mention the rule WRT Shemuel and mamunus, at least not
there, perhaps it is sufficiently implied in R' Hunah's limitation by
"be'issurei" to conclude that the rule in question was first stated by
their mutual talmid, who could easily compare their knowledge.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RMB:

<<The problem you raise is the lumping together of one conclusion reached by

two different means as a single pool of votes. For this to be a problem,
you would have to assume that acharei rabim lehatos means among sevaros,
rather than among pesaqim.>>

A naive reading of the gemara indicates that it does mean the majority of
sevaros.  See Sanhedrin 34a; the drasha doesn't indicate any restriction to
dinei nefashos, and see Ramabm H. Sanhedrin 10:5.  OTOH Shach HM 25 SK 19
subsection 2 emends the text(!) in order to avoid this conclusion.

David Riceman

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> Here's my take on TBC. Animals have no "I", no awareness of their
> own mental states. This appears to be true based on brain anatomy

Whether they are or are not "aware of their own mental state" seems irrelevant to me. They can and do feel pain, don't they?

> You are setting a threshold based on the notion that there is real
> suffering going on that carries a moral burden to avoid. Who said?

Are you saying that there's no real suffering going on?

I suspect that people are talking past each other because we're not being
clear on the nature of the alleged Tzaar Baalei Chayim. We all understand
that geese don't like being force-fed, and the only question is whether or
not it is assur to do so.

I suspect that the nature of the pain in this "farm vs. factory" discussion
is much murkier. I have a feeling that some claim the problem to be that
the animals don't like being cooped up in a factory, and would prefer to
roam freely on the farm, and that RMB is claiming that these animals are
not experiencing any pain other than a supposed Heartbreak Of Being Cooped
Up, which is something they have no awareness of.

Am I close? If not, then what *is* the pain that RMB denies?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
FIRE SALE: iPads for $23.74?
SPECIAL REPORT: Unique auction site can save you 90% off retail.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4c3f368c868cf2877f2st06vuc

menucha wrote:
> Rav Zeev Viteman, the Rav of Tnuva,  says "chalav yisrael".  He is 
> makpid on his wording as to what RMF permitted.  He quoted that when RMF 
> heard that people said "RMF was matir chalav akum" his response was 
> "next they'll say I was matir eishes ish"

Which, of course, the Satmar Rebbe held he was!

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

From the London Beth Din site:

Key:

KLBD - Product made under the supervision of or certified by the London Beth
Din.
*S* - Product made under the supervision of other recognised Rabbinical
Authorities, only when bearing the appropriate kashrut symbol (hechsher).
*Chalav Yisrael* - Dairy product containing supervised milk.
*Dairy* - Dairy product containing *Chalav Akum *(non-supervised milk).
*Parev* - Product approved and Parev containing no milk or meat ingredients.
*Not Kosher* - Product investigated and found to be non-kosher.

Perhaps they need to be apprised of both the terminological inexactitudes,
and the grammatical ones?


On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 12:53 PM, menucha <m...@inter.net.il> wrote:

> Rav Zeev Viteman, the Rav of Tnuva,  says "chalav yisrael".  He is makpid
> on his wording as to what RMF permitted.  He quoted that when RMF heard that
> people said "RMF was matir chalav akum" his response was "next they'll say I
> was matir eishes ish"
> menucha
>
>  Jay F Shachter wrote:
>>
>>  .  One does not properly speak of xalav `akum, or of xalav
>>> yisrael.  It is xalev `akum (the milk of an idolater) and xalev
>>> yisrael (the milk of a Jew).Similarly, I feel
>>>
>>
>>  more confident in what someone tells me about xalev yisrael, if he
>>> knows how to pronounce it correctly.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100715/099edfb9/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB:

<<you are discussing the case where rov hold X over Y, but only a

mi'ut hold X because of sevara A and only a mi'ut hold X because of
sevara B. If the vote were on sevaros, we would say that neither A nor
B should become din, and therefore lemaaseh we shoul do Y. However:
(1) the vote is on outcomes; and (2) dayanim don't hold A to the exclusion
of B, C or D, nor even to the exclusion of not-A -- a dayan could hold
X because maybe-A and if not, maybe-B ... and all the other complicated
ways multiple reasons come together to convince someone. The vote
couldn't be about who holds which sevara because that's uncountable.>>

(a) You have presented no evidence that voting for sevaros would be
uncountable - - surely the BD could simply go down the list and take a vote
about each sevara, or the meishiv could list the sevaros he accepts in his
teshuva.

(b) It is true that voting is about the outcome of a particular case.  The
problem is precedent: in order for a case to become a precedent we need to
be able to generalize it, and that requires reasoning by analogy, and that
requires sevara.

Paradoxes can sometimes result.

David Riceman

RMB:

<<If his argument were more about the law itself, you would need a lawyer

with an expertise in early to mid 19th cent CE Galician or Polish law.
But I don't think that's his point. More that the law shows a general
moral tendency to respect the desires of the author.>>


I don't know about Galicia, but in mid nineteenth century USA the rights 
generally went to the publisher, not the author.  If you read 19th 
century haskamos you get the impression that that seems to have been 
true for Jewish books as well.

David Riceman

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 04:25:06PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: Whether they are or are not "aware of their own mental state" seems
: irrelevant to me. They can and do feel pain, don't they?

But they don't feel themselves feeling pain. There is no "I" as in
"I am in pain". There are chemical and neurological events, yes, but
not suffering as we think of the concept.

:> You are setting a threshold based on the notion that there is real
:> suffering going on that carries a moral burden to avoid. Who said?

: Are you saying that there's no real suffering going on?

Exactly, because an animal doesn't have a ruach, and therefore there is
no one to suffer. There is stimulus and response, with no awareness or
bechirah in between. IOW, I am saying that Skinner and all the other
Radical Behaviorists were totally off in explaining the human metzi'us,
but their kind of analysis does yeild a complete description of animals.

(WADR to Roo the cockerpoo (cockerspaniel poodle mix) and Cream the cat,
my kids' pets who I'm mentioning just to show that I don't actually
hate animals. Hey, I even wrote "who" when the above means I should have
written "which"!)

This is just philosophical back-explanation anyway.

Bottom line is that I'm extending the Ramban's explanation of shiluach
haqen being about training people, rather than "al qan tzippor yagiu
Rachamekha" to TBC as well. I'm happier doing that thinking there is
no tzaar as we understand the word, but I think the lack of reason to
distinguish between what the Ramban said there and TBC is sufficient
to make my point.

: I suspect that people are talking past each other because we're not
: being clear on the nature of the alleged Tzaar Baalei Chayim...

I don't think we're talking past each other. We simply have a difference
of opinion about the definition of mitigating need. Nor does it revolve
around the nature of animal suffering -- I just raised my disbelief of
that subject to explain why I'm okay with the din requiring so little
justification to permit causing pain to animals.

FWIW, in terms of developing ehrlachkeit, as I tried to show from the
story about Rebbe's toothache, it's a good lifnim mishuras hadin not to
eat pate de fois gras or white veal -- even if I didn't think the way
either is done is too likely to produce tereifos anyway.

But that's Hilkhos Dei'os, not a letter-of-the-law TBC issue.

And I feel we can't really make a strong argument about factory-raised
animals being actual iqar-hadin assur if so many of the acharonim we
rely upon actually did eat fattened geese.

Tangent:

Is there a strong connection between the Hil' Dei'os obligation not
to stick to shuras hadin without ever setting "stretch goals" and the
concept of tosefes Shabbos / Yom Tov / Shemittah?

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

 


I'm missing how you found evidence of Rav v. Shemuel rules being hard and
fast algorithmic rules rather than a factor to consider that might in some
cases be overridden.



-Micha

-- 
Simply based on the language of the Rosh and chavot Yair who gave those
reasons for why we hold like rav in issurin and shmuel in mamonot. It
didn't sound to me like they were saying it was "a" factor but rather "the"
factor - but of course they could be read that it was a very strong yet
rebuttable presumption I suppose.

KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

Someone on the Areivim mailing list wrote:
> And still, AFAIK, the LBD approves chalav akum products.
 
To this comment, R' Jay F. ("Yaakov") Shachter gave a very erudite and
interesting comment. He's not really wrong in any of what he wrote, but in
my opinion, he focused too much on a minor error, and totally missed the
major error.

By "minor" error, I am referring to the second vowel in the phrase "chalav
akum". Indeed, over my years here on Avodah, the grammarians have taught me
that it should be a tzere - chaleiv. And I do try to pronounce it as such,
whenever I am in a situation where it will not appear as yuhara (that is to
say, never).

But the *major* error in the quote from Areivim lies not in the second
vowel of "chalav akum", but in the second WORD. And I am not talking about
"akum" as opposed to "nochri"; as RJF("Y")S wrote, there's no difference
between them in this context.

Chalilah to think that the London Beis Din, or Rav Moshe Feinstein, or
anyone else worthy of our respect, would ever say that "Non-Jewish milk is
allowed." They would never suggest that this halacha, however one chooses
to name it, can be ignored.

They do NOT "approve chalav akum products". Rather, they say that the
halachos of chalav akum do not *apply* to *these* products. There is a
world of difference.

(Some try to resolve this problem with the phrase "cholov stam", but it
seems to me that "plain milk" has no advantage over "non-Jewish milk". My
practice is that here on Avodah, I use the phrase which Rav Moshe Feinstein
used very consistently in his teshuvos, "cholov hacompanies", and in other
situations I use the phrases "rabbinically supervised milk" and "government
supervised milk".)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
SHOCKING: 13" Macbook Pro for $91.72!
SPECIAL REPORT: Macbooks are being auctioned for an incredible 85% off!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4c3f445ec4c2628dd86st04vuc

 

 
 The following is probably more for Areivim than for Avodah, since it
 relates to language rather than halacha or hashkafa, but it is in response
 to a comment made on Avodah.

 RYaakov Shachter writes:  

<One does not properly speak of xalav `akum, or of xalav yisrael.  It is
xalev `akum (the milk of an idolater) and xalev yisrael (the milk of a
Jew).  "Xalav" means "milk"; "xalev" means "the milk of", as in, "lo
thvashel gdi baxalev immo", do not cook a kid in the milk of his mother.

<If a Jewish man says "xalav yisrael", it is not just a matter of his
never having been taught to speak Hebrew properly.  That is his parents'
fault, not his.  But the above-cited words appear three times in the Torah,
in Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21. That means that a
Jewish man, unless he converted to Judaism in adulthood, has read those
words at least six times a year since he was 13 years old.  If he can read
those words six times a year since he was 13 years old, and still say,
"xalav yisrael", it means he is a man who can read the Torah without paying
attention to what he is reading."

     I would agree with his point if the speaker were talking Hebrew,
     whether l'shon kodesh or its modern-day Israeli (distant) cousin
     (though I would say "chaleiv" rather than "chalev," since the word has
     a tzeire, not a segol).   

     However, when one is speaking English or Yiddish, the situation is
     different.  The term, in those languages, may be _derived_ from the
     Hebrew, but its correct form in those languages is cholov, not
     chaleiv.  

     This is true of many terms which have worked their way from Hebrew to
     other languages.  For instance, the plural of Shabbos, in Yiddish, is
     Shabbosim, not Shabbasos.	The word for "holiday" is "yuntef," not
     "yom tov," (and its plural is yontoivim), which is why the greeting
     "Gut yontef" is not "good good day," but "good holiday."  It is why it
     is not incorrect to speak about a "bal korey," and why it would be
     wrong to insist that it be "ba'al k'ria" (which, parenthetically, is
     only a few centuries old even in Hebrew, where the proper term, if one
     wishes to be pedantic, is "korei," since the use of "ba'al" as "one
     who performs" is a borrowing from its original "owner of" or "master
     of").   Does one correct an English speaker when he refers to someone
     as a behemoth, because in the Hebrew from which it was taken
     "behemoth" is plural?

He continues:

< . . . "xalev `akum" is not the correct term.  It is an incorrect term,
which appears in our texts because of non-Jewish censors.  Our texts
contain some disparaging statements about non-Jews.  Because of those
disparaging statements, non-Jewish censors forced us to change the word
"nokhri" (Gentile) in our texts to the acronym "`akum" (literally, one who
worships the stars and planets -- it is a legal term that denotes an
idolater).  In this way, the non-Jewish censors, who did not think of
themselves as idolaters, satisfied themselves that none of the disparaging
statements were
about them.

(snip)

< Therefore, the term "xalev `akum" is clearly wrong, and it is the
worst kind of wrong, the kind of wrong that can lead people to making
incorrect conclusions about halakha, and it must therefore be corrected, in
public, whenever it is heard.  The correct term is "xalev nokhri" (and,
mutatis mutandis, path nokhri, gvinath nokhri).>

     The term "akum" for non-Jew has a hetteir meiah rabbanim -- many more
     than 100 g'dolei hapos'kim have referred, and continue to refer, to
     the non-Jew as "akum," in speech as well as in writing. It has been
     used for so long that I doubt there is anyone who considers the
     idolatrous connotation of the term when he uses it; when he wants to
     specify idoaters, he uses "ov'dei avoda zara," not "akum."  I assume
     that the word "goy" for non-Jew is also not in the original, yet we
     continue to say "shelo asani goy," not "shelo asani nochri."  There is
     thus nothing wrong in referring to chaleiv akum, or -- when not
     speaking Hebrew -- to chalav akum.

     Speaking of censors and akum, there were censors who were very careful
     to replace "goy" by "akum."  As a result, there was a siddur printed
     which read "Shomer akum echad, sh'mor sh'eiris akum echad, v'al yovad
     akum echad," and "umi k'amcha Yisraeil akum echad ba'aretz."

EMT


 
____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 2000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c3f4582a957b27eb94st03vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100715/7aacda66/attachment-0001.htm>

Chevre,

In Machshirin 2:4, the Mishna talks about a case where one is 
laundering b'gadim in tamei water.  The footnote (Reb Artscroll) 
discusses why somebody would ever do that, and they note that: "A 
rishon doesn't have the capacity to convey tumah to people or 
utensils (including garments)," only food and other liquids.  OK.

We know that's true with a rishon in general, but we also know that a 
_liquid_ rishon _is_ m'tamei people or keilim.

And, in fact, in Machshirin 4:10 the Mishna warns about accidentally 
putting tamei wet logs into an oven, davka for the reason that the 
wetness on the logs might be m'tamei the earthenware oven (because, 
d'rabbanan, tamei liquids are m'tamei keilim).

So, what am I missing?  How do we explain 2:4?

-- Sholom



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 142
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."